This is law governing truth in Advertising as it would apply to the FTC...... § 238.2 Initial offer.

(a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value, currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be switched from the advertised product to another. (b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception. [Guide 2]

The famous case of marbles in the soup (excerpt taken from D Magizine, .by Spencer Michlin “There are a million nuances, but essentially two rules,” says Stuart Friedel, who specializes in advertising law for the New York firm of Davis & Gilbert. “First, you cannot misrepresent the product. Second, you cannot simulate the product in use without indicating that it is a simulation, which is why you see that word superimposed when commercials show pictures on phones or TVs.”

The marbles in Campbell’s vegetable soup provide an iconic case in point. Just about the time I joined BBDO in New York in 1968, the head of the agency’s art department, testifying to the Federal Trade Commission on a totally unrelated matter, volunteered in effect that, “We want to make the food look as good as it actually is. For example, we put marbles in the soup” to force the vegetables to the top of the bowl.

“Marbles in the soup?” responded the FTC (where, coincidentally, Friedel was a young staff attorney at the time). No copywriter ever penned a more memorable phrase, and it immediately became a national topic of conversation and editorial invective. Although Campbell’s was not required to run the corrective advertising requested by the FTC, the shrieking caused the chastened company to drop the practice like a red-hot spoon.

“Marbles in the soup.” It sounds like an epic Ralph Nader fantasy of corporate evildoing. In reality, it was merely an attempt to let the camera see the vegetables that were in there but sank to the bottom of the bowl. (Today Campbell’s shows its product in a ladle or in a shallow saucer, shot so tight that you can’t see the edges.)

My conclusion is the FTC is the authority over this, but suits that run from one company suing another far out weigh those of the FTC...

Beware, not to make one companies product look like another. Infringement and copying original ideas is a big no no, but often falls outside of the photographer/stylist in scope of responsibility as creative direction prior to the shoot dictates this. Keep good records!!!